AuthorTopic: The Thread on Politics (Read 447877 times)

Having said that, I believe the best plan to cover as many as possible will be to require health care insurance (like car insurance) while subsidizing the insurance costs for lower income people on a sliding scale--something similar to Mass. plan.

I've heard some good things about the Mass. health plan and I've heard some bad. While as an advocate of universal health care I certainly approve of any steps taken in that direction, I don't see Mass. plan as being easily adaptable to the rest of the country. Hawaii funds its universal health care through an employer mandate, would that work in Illinois? Probably not.

Logged

Grrr...

Quote from: 1LCorvo

If there aren't any arguments against my claims, then I'll depart gracefully. Feel free to continue the concordant attack on my character, it's funny.

Not necessarily. My point was that the American health care system already costs X amount of dollars. Any plan to give coverage to the currently uninsured, with out restructuring the system, would cost X + Y dollars.

Sure, some change in the system will be necessary. The question: Is Universal Health Care the best option? For me, no… Government works best when it legislates and monitors… We really don't need another government bureaucracy.

While I agree that Universal Health Care can reduce administrative costs, so can other plans. Having said that, there are still reasons--like the fact that average income for physicians in the United States is higher than that of physicians in Canada, and U.S. spending on medical research and technology is the highest in the world--that will continue to make U.S. health care generally more expensive.

Having said that, I believe the best plan to cover as many as possible will be to require health care insurance (like car insurance) while subsidizing the insurance costs for lower income people on a sliding scale--something similar to Mass. plan.

I've heard some good things about the Mass. health plan and I've heard some bad. While as an advocate of universal health care I certainly approve of any steps taken in that direction, I don't see Mass. plan as being easily adaptable to the rest of the country. Hawaii funds its universal health care through an employer mandate, would that work in Illinois? Probably not.

Which is why it should be left to each state to tailor such a plan to fit its needs. This is good. The states are being innovative. Proof that we don't need the national government to do everything. A national plan would not be sensitive to such state-by-state variations. But perhaps the national government could provide some sort of incentive to make the ball roll faster.

Having said that, I believe the best plan to cover as many as possible will be to require health care insurance (like car insurance) while subsidizing the insurance costs for lower income people on a sliding scale--something similar to Mass. plan.

I've heard some good things about the Mass. health plan and I've heard some bad. While as an advocate of universal health care I certainly approve of any steps taken in that direction, I don't see Mass. plan as being easily adaptable to the rest of the country. Hawaii funds its universal health care through an employer mandate, would that work in Illinois? Probably not.

I think that's why it would be best for states to implement individual plans with a mandate focusing on covering all residents.

Hmmm...and what happens in states that can't foot the bill as well as Mass. can, or can't afford to alienate their businesses? (Walmart, anyone?) They offer a lower quality of care? Their residents take one for the team?

I don't even understand the opposition to universal health care. Is it the faint whiff of socialism? Is the contention that Americans are so dumb that they will inevitably screw up what every other industrialized nation has made work? (if we define work as "cover more citizens at a fraction of what the Americans are paying)

Also @ TheBadGuy - doctors make more because their operating costs are higher. It's called malpractice insurance. Not a big problem in universal health care system. Also wrt "US spending on medical research and technology"...it's about time Big Pharm is made to foot their own bills. Besides, given the frequency of their advertising during prime time, I get the feeling they're not exactly hurting.

But you guys are right where it matters most - barring some kind of major shakeup in Washington, I doubt we'll be seeing universal health care in America anytime soon. Sigh.

Logged

Grrr...

Quote from: 1LCorvo

If there aren't any arguments against my claims, then I'll depart gracefully. Feel free to continue the concordant attack on my character, it's funny.

The opposition comes from a fundamental difference in how I view the proper role of the government. It's just not very good at running things. The agency set up to oversee such a program would become bloated and inefficient, with lots of entrenched interests and partisan influences.

As for the poor states, I guess they would have to require more employer contributions and raise taxes. Is that likely to happen? With the right incentives, perhaps. But the point is, each individual state can decide better than the national government how best to implement such a program. Undoubtedly, a national program would be inefficient in many ways for MA, just as it would be for MI or AK.

Well we mainly just toss out ideas to inform each other. I'm certain that Alci and I had this discussion knowing that our minds wouldn't be changed, but we were still genuinely interested to hear the counter-arguments.

In the greater scale of things, I have no power, save a largely symbolic vote in a state that always goes to the Dems.Sorry.Of course, you could marry your righteous rage to mine and we could start a guerrilla grassroots movement where we kidnap doctors and force them to administer checkups at knife point. This might get us noticed.Definitely arrested.Probably both.Tell me what you think.

OK, I feel the same and I haven't seen any compelling counter-arguments. Generally, there's a vague idea that the government is this corpulent monster and that universal health care would just be one more program that would be sucked into its gaping maw. But to my mind, leaving this to the states is asking for trouble. It may be just me, but universality is a pretty big part of my concept of universal health care.

The public school system as an archetype of a successful fed-state program? I wear a small, and I can be there in 20 mins.

lol. I thought the "No virus left behind" comment would make clear my sarcasm.

I'd like to see how the MA and CA experiments turn out, but my feeling is that a federally initiated and controlled program would be most effective if it can somehow be given a measure of autonomy to free it from partisan mucking.

Logged

Grrr...

Quote from: 1LCorvo

If there aren't any arguments against my claims, then I'll depart gracefully. Feel free to continue the concordant attack on my character, it's funny.